W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001

RE: Reification of Sets (of RDF Statement, for Queries)

From: Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:45:04 +0600
To: "Jan Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, "www-rdf-interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFAEGADBAA.danny@panlanka.net>
<- > IANAL, but don't we still need to be able to tell the
<- difference between
<- > e.g. {1, 2, 3, 4} and {1, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3}?
<-
<- What difference? They're both representations of the same set.

Set?

<- > There is definitely elegance to LISP-style lists, though
<- personally I can't
<- > judge how appropriate they would be in this context - the RDF model is
<- > pretty much object-orientated (maybe transformed a little) -
<- how well does
<- > the mix of lists & objects work in e.g. CLOS?
<-
<- I was initially taken with this construct (I think pretty much everybody
<- has invented this as a notion as some point) but I'm less inclined to
<- like it now. Why? Weeeell, why not use something slicker, like balanced
<- trees? Or any other data structure of your choice?
<-
<- I prefer the abstraction of just using numbered members. An RDF
<- implementation is free to use whatever datastructure it pleases behind
<- the scenes*; given a little API support, there need be no O(n) cost for
<- fetching the _n_th sequence member, etc.

hmm - matter of taste there, I guess.
Personally I'd love it if a mapping of the Java Collections framework
appeared in there overnight...

On a related point, without a view either way - is it wise to have the basic
list-kind-of-thang with these kind of features? (i.e. ordered, dupes
allowed) or do it more axiomatically (if you get my drift)
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2001 09:48:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:48 GMT